News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

I-73 in VA

Started by 74/171FAN, June 04, 2009, 07:50:37 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Beltway

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 21, 2019, 02:13:41 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 21, 2019, 02:06:36 PM
After 40 years, the bridge would be at or near the end of its structural lifespan for use on an Interstate highway, especially given today's truck weights.  There might be other issues such as width of roadway and vertical clearance.  It makes sense to go ahead and replace it now than in a few years.
How about every interstate that's been in service for 40+ years? It's all a dependency of funding. If they can widen the shoulders on these highways and designate an interstate on it, they will do that. If later on, funding becomes available, they will replace the bridges, the same process as the existing interstates.

Start off with a brand new highway.  Then enjoy a few decades where at first there is minimal maintenance, then later there are resurfacings, then much later (like 40+ years), bridges will need deck replacements or maybe full replacement.

If some other states want to do differently that is their choice.  But I will defend the practice of states that do it as I said for Interstate design and new construction standards.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)


sprjus4

Quote from: Beltway on January 21, 2019, 02:22:35 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 21, 2019, 02:13:41 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 21, 2019, 02:06:36 PM
After 40 years, the bridge would be at or near the end of its structural lifespan for use on an Interstate highway, especially given today's truck weights.  There might be other issues such as width of roadway and vertical clearance.  It makes sense to go ahead and replace it now than in a few years.
How about every interstate that's been in service for 40+ years? It's all a dependency of funding. If they can widen the shoulders on these highways and designate an interstate on it, they will do that. If later on, funding becomes available, they will replace the bridges, the same process as the existing interstates.

Start off with a brand new highway.  Then enjoy a few decades where at first there is minimal maintenance, then later there are resurfacings, then much later (like 40+ years), bridges will need deck replacements or maybe full replacement.

If some other states want to do differently that is their choice.  But I will defend the practice of states that do it as I said for Interstate design and new construction standards.
Yeah, I think North Carolina adheres to a different standard than VDOT. Whenever new interstates / freeways are built, they will generally incorporate older bridges that currently service traffic into the existing system. We discussed the long-bridges on US-17 near Williamston, Edenton, and Hertford. Those are examples of that - incorporating older bridges into the interstate. Those would still meet interstate standards, long-bridges can have shoulders of 4 ft on both sides if it's older. I must admit VDOT is better with maintenance and maintaining the roadways / bridges. Less so in North Carolina. Sometimes I feel they're more focused on constructing new freeways than maintaining what they already have. This could come back to hurt them in the future. Having new highways isn't a bad thing, it's just they need to balance it with maintaining existing infrastructure.

Roadsguy

I say we compromise and build I-73 straight through the middle of Martinsville.
Mileage-based exit numbering implies the existence of mileage-cringe exit numbering.

Beltway

#428
Quote from: Roadsguy on January 21, 2019, 02:37:35 PM
I say we compromise and build I-73 straight through the middle of Martinsville.

I say let the localities have input on where to route the highway.  The I-73 Henry County Alternative of 2011 is what the city and county wanted, to help support two new major developments planned to the north and northeast of the city, and the highway is an extension of the east end of the bypass on a route to the north.  If it is a couple miles longer than a theoretical western route, then so be it.  A western route would not access these.

Like I said there already is a western route, the US-220 4-lane that exists today, and which will continue to exist.

In the case of limited access highway being bypassed by a new Interstate highway, one possible treatment would be to evaluate that old limited access highway and consider decertifying the limited access right-of-way, so that over time new businesses and homes could be built along and with direct access to the highway.  The US-220 bypasses at Rocky Mount and Martinsville would most likely be in this category, pending a traffic study.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

Strider

I am just glad they're serious about building the MSC. Even though I support the western alignment (ties into US 220 Martinsville bypass), since the locals do want I-73 to be built EAST of the town, the locals always win.

I plan on attending the MSC workshop on Wednesday to find out which alignment they want to build at this time.

And, yes, once the MSC is completed, it can be incorporated into I-73.

Build the MSC!

sprjus4

Quote from: Beltway on January 21, 2019, 02:55:09 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on January 21, 2019, 02:37:35 PM
I say we compromise and build I-73 straight through the middle of Martinsville.

I say let the localities have input on where to route the highway.  The I-73 Henry County Alternative of 2011 is what the city and county wanted, to help support two new major developments planned to the north and northeast of the city, and the highway is an extension of the east end of the bypass on a route to the north.  If it is a couple miles longer than a theoretical western route, then so be it.  A western route would not access these.
Actually, there would always be eastern access no matter what. US-58 Bypass connects this area straight to a western I-73 via a limited-access freeway.

Quote from: Beltway on January 21, 2019, 02:55:09 PM
In the case of limited access highway being bypassed by a new Interstate highway, one possible treatment would be to evaluate that old limited access highway and consider decertifying the limited access right-of-way, so that over time new businesses and homes could be built along and with direct access to the highway.  The US-220 bypasses at Rocky Mount and Martinsville would most likely be in this category, pending a traffic study.
That would be a big mistake. It would still get traffic heading to developments / businesses located on the west part of Martinsville, and to convert it down to a non-limited-access roadway would have serious consequences.

Quote from: Strider on January 21, 2019, 03:34:51 PM
I am just glad they're serious about building the MSC. Even though I support the western alignment (ties into US 220 Martinsville bypass), since the locals do want I-73 to be built EAST of the town, the locals always win.

I plan on attending the MSC workshop on Wednesday to find out which alignment they want to build at this time.

And, yes, once the MSC is completed, it can be incorporated into I-73.

Build the MSC!
Agreed, but like I mentioned before an eastern alignment wouldn't service much traffic until the rest of this "eastern" alignment for I-73 is built, which won't happen for years after MSC is built. I wouldn't say the locals would support an alignment heading nowhere as opposed to a western alignment servicing thru-traffic. If they realize this is all that's getting built now, there could be a change in interest.

I don't think a "preferred" alternative is currently decided yet, but I'll be sure to submit an online comment about this supporting the western route.

Strider

The preferred alternative may not be decided until late Summer or Fall 2019, however. We will just see which alternatives that has the most likes on Wednesday.

Beltway

#432
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 21, 2019, 04:27:19 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 21, 2019, 02:55:09 PM
I say let the localities have input on where to route the highway.  The I-73 Henry County Alternative of 2011 is what the city and county wanted, to help support two new major developments planned to the north and northeast of the city, and the highway is an extension of the east end of the bypass on a route to the north.  If it is a couple miles longer than a theoretical western route, then so be it.  A western route would not access these.
Actually, there would always be eastern access no matter what. US-58 Bypass connects this area straight to a western I-73 via a limited-access freeway.

It would not directly access them, they would be on the opposite side of the city from the Interstate and only accessible by 2-lane roads.  Look at the 2012 ALC map.  IOW, poor access versus excellent access.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 21, 2019, 04:27:19 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 21, 2019, 02:55:09 PM
In the case of limited access highway being bypassed by a new Interstate highway, one possible treatment would be to evaluate that old limited access highway and consider decertifying the limited access right-of-way, so that over time new businesses and homes could be built along and with direct access to the highway.  The US-220 bypasses at Rocky Mount and Martinsville would most likely be in this category, pending a traffic study.
That would be a big mistake. It would still get traffic heading to developments / businesses located on the west part of Martinsville, and to convert it down to a non-limited-access roadway would have serious consequences.

Not if the traffic dropped down to below 10,000 vpd with only light truck traffic.  If traffic studies showed that to be the case then that would make much better local use of those segments.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 21, 2019, 04:27:19 PM
Agreed, but like I mentioned before an eastern alignment wouldn't service much traffic until the rest of this "eastern" alignment for I-73 is built, which won't happen for years after MSC is built. I wouldn't say the locals would support an alignment heading nowhere as opposed to a western alignment servicing thru-traffic. If they realize this is all that's getting built now, there could be a change in interest.

Then delay building the MSC until the rest of the ALC up to US-220 just north of the Henry/Franklin county line is ready to be funded.  The MSC by itself has very little utility.

Quote from: Strider on January 21, 2019, 04:32:28 PM
The preferred alternative may not be decided until late Summer or Fall 2019, however. We will just see which alternatives that has the most likes on Wednesday.

Given the age of the FEIS (2006) there will be need for an SFEIS and possibly even a new EIS process, to meet NEPA standards, for the entire route between the N.C. and I-81.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

sprjus4

Quote from: Beltway on January 21, 2019, 05:17:09 PM
It would not directly access them, they would be on the opposite side of the city from the Interstate and only accessible by 2-lane roads.  Look at the 2012 ALC map.  IOW, poor access versus excellent access.
I'm confused. Which developments are you referring to and where?

Quote from: Beltway on January 21, 2019, 05:17:09 PM
Not if the traffic dropped down to below 10,000 vpd with only light truck traffic.  If traffic studies showed that to be the case then that would make much better local use of those segments.
If Martinsville were to have the I-73 Eastern Alignment, plus a U.S. 220 Freeway to the west, they could use that to their advantage to continue growing the city and the county could develop near its areas. Having 2 freeways can lead to more growth and I think it would be wise to take advantage of it rather than convert it to a non-limited-access roadway. Controlled-access on roadways and controlled areas of development is a good strategy. Eliminating access controls and having a free-for-all on development is what can lead to overcrowding, numerous of traffic signals, and if the area does grow, traffic issues.

Quote from: Beltway on January 21, 2019, 05:17:09 PM
The MSC by itself has very little utility.
If it was built to connect to the Martinsville Bypass to the west, it would have plenty of use. They're clearly invested in studying and building this thing to connect Martinsville to North Carolina, where they're actually willing to fund construction and meet Virginia and connect directly Martinsville to Greensboro and points south.

Quote from: Beltway on January 21, 2019, 05:17:09 PM
Given the age of the FEIS (2006) there will be need for an SFEIS and possibly even a new EIS process, to meet NEPA standards, for the entire route between the N.C. and I-81.
And if a re-evaluation is done, they can study a western alignment again. You mentioned yourself they wouldn't waste time re-evaluating it because a study is already completed, if they have to redo it, then they would re-evaluate all options. I think it would be best now to study each segment at a time (like the MSC) and build it overtime in segments. Link each "connector" up in the end to create one continuous freeway.

sprjus4

Quote from: Strider on January 21, 2019, 04:32:28 PM
The preferred alternative may not be decided until late Summer or Fall 2019, however. We will just see which alternatives that has the most likes on Wednesday.
I'd imagine the western one, simply because it would have the most traffic usage, and be the most valuable and cheapest to build. But, we'll see.

Beltway

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 21, 2019, 05:56:48 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 21, 2019, 05:17:09 PM
It would not directly access them, they would be on the opposite side of the city from the Interstate and only accessible by 2-lane roads.  Look at the 2012 ALC map.  IOW, poor access versus excellent access.
I'm confused. Which developments are you referring to and where?

I'm tired of doing your work -- look it up, the map is on the VDOT I-73 page.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 21, 2019, 05:56:48 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 21, 2019, 05:17:09 PM
Not if the traffic dropped down to below 10,000 vpd with only light truck traffic.  If traffic studies showed that to be the case then that would make much better local use of those segments.
If Martinsville were to have the I-73 Eastern Alignment, plus a U.S. 220 Freeway to the west, they could use that to their advantage to continue growing the city and the county could develop near its areas. Having 2 freeways can lead to more growth and I think it would be wise to take advantage of it rather than convert it to a non-limited-access roadway. Controlled-access on roadways and controlled areas of development is a good strategy. Eliminating access controls and having a free-for-all on development is what can lead to overcrowding, numerous of traffic signals, and if the area does grow, traffic issues.

Why do they need 2 freeways, given the short length of the US-220 section?

If they don't decertify the L/A R/W, they could at least modify it to allow new at-grade intersections with public roads to access new developments.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 21, 2019, 05:56:48 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 21, 2019, 05:17:09 PM
The MSC by itself has very little utility.
If it was built to connect to the Martinsville Bypass to the west, it would have plenty of use. They're clearly invested in studying and building this thing to connect Martinsville to North Carolina, where they're actually willing to fund construction and meet Virginia and connect directly Martinsville to Greensboro and points south.

They are not going to route it west when they have an eastern ALC.  Bank on it.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 21, 2019, 05:56:48 PM
And if a re-evaluation is done, they can study a western alignment again. You mentioned yourself they wouldn't waste time re-evaluating it because a study is already completed, if they have to redo it, then they would re-evaluate all options. I think it would be best now to study each segment at a time (like the MSC) and build it overtime in segments. Link each "connector" up in the end to create one continuous freeway.

No, they would need to study the whole corridor, as they did before.  There would be a variety of sub-alternates that could be evaluated and then one ALC would be chosen.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

sprjus4

Quote from: Beltway on January 21, 2019, 06:07:11 PM
I'm tired of doing your work -- look it up, the map is on the VDOT I-73 page.
The only one I found was the Patriot Centre Industrial Park which would be about 2 miles from a western alignment, and accessible by 4-lane roadways. The eastern alternative would get about 1.5 miles from it and is served by 2 lane roads... I must be missing some other development.

Quote from: Beltway on January 21, 2019, 06:07:11 PM
Why do they need 2 freeways, given the short length of the US-220 section?
As it stands today, there wouldn't be a need. But if the interstate comes and development comes, the area could grow, therefore warranting more roads, and keeping the existing 12 (not short?) mile section of U.S. 220 in tact would serve new development on the western side of Martinsville.

Quote from: Beltway on January 21, 2019, 06:07:11 PM
If they don't decertify the L/A R/W, they could at least modify it to allow new at-grade intersections with public roads to access new developments.
How about developments off an interchange from a high-capacity, high-speed freeway? That would invite more development of interchanges rather than an at-grade roadway. And there would be a road to handle additional capacity from future developments, and possibly future residential.

Quote from: Beltway on January 21, 2019, 06:07:11 PM
They are not going to route it west when they have an eastern ALC.  Bank on it.
You keep referring to this as ALC, but that's the original alignment. Are you referring to the HCA, the one which overlaps the 4 miles of the US-58 bypass? The ALC was the all new location even farther east option.

Quote from: Beltway on January 21, 2019, 06:07:11 PM
No, they would need to study the whole corridor, as they did before.  There would be a variety of sub-alternates that could be evaluated and then one ALC would be chosen.
Yes, one study could happen (for instance, the original one), but by the time any segment actually gets funded or considered, a new study would be required (for instance, the MSC) Then at that point, it's only one section, and when other sections are considered, a new study would be required once again (for instance, the second study you are proposing). It would just keep going back and forth, study after study, millions of dollars wasted, and no pavement laid down.

Beltway

#437
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 21, 2019, 06:24:10 PM
The only one I found was the Patriot Centre Industrial Park which would be about 2 miles from a western alignment, and accessible by 4-lane roadways. The eastern alternative would get about 1.5 miles from it and is served by 2 lane roads... I must be missing some other development.

It is not accessible by 4-lane roads, it is 5 miles from US-220, and an I-73 interchange is planned right next to it.  There is major development planned at the other interchange VA-57 also on the northern loop.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 21, 2019, 06:24:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 21, 2019, 06:07:11 PM
Why do they need 2 freeways, given the short length of the US-220 section?
As it stands today, there wouldn't be a need. But if the interstate comes and development comes, the area could grow, therefore warranting more roads, and keeping the existing 12 (not short?) mile section of U.S. 220 in tact would serve new development on the western side of Martinsville.

The US-220-only portion of the bypass is 6 miles long.  The rest contains US-58 and is needed for US-58 which is another 4-lane arterial corridor and I would not recommend reducing the design.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 21, 2019, 06:24:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 21, 2019, 06:07:11 PM
If they don't decertify the L/A R/W, they could at least modify it to allow new at-grade intersections with public roads to access new developments.
How about developments off an interchange from a high-capacity, high-speed freeway? That would invite more development of interchanges rather than an at-grade roadway. And there would be a road to handle additional capacity from future developments, and possibly future residential.]

Possibly, that is why I recommended a traffic study to determine things.  Just a thought to someone who might say, "Why let a freeway go to waste?"  It could be modified into an at-grade expressway, and as 40+ year old bridges wear out the interchanges could be changed to at-grade intersections, particularly at the bypass terminals.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 21, 2019, 06:24:10 PM
You keep referring to this as ALC, but that's the original alignment. Are you referring to the HCA, the one which overlaps the 4 miles of the US-58 bypass? The ALC was the all new location even farther east option.

The CBT action in 2011 incorporated the HCA into the ALC.  The green route on the VDOT map of approved I-73.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 21, 2019, 06:24:10 PM
Yes, one study could happen (for instance, the original one), but by the time any segment actually gets funded or considered, a new study would be required (for instance, the MSC) Then at that point, it's only one section, and when other sections are considered, a new study would be required once again (for instance, the second study you are proposing). It would just keep going back and forth, study after study, millions of dollars wasted, and no pavement laid down.

As a long-distance Interstate highway, it should be a given that an EIS/location study would cover the whole 70 miles between the N.C. and I-81.  Such a study can identify segments of independent utility (SIU) which have stand-alone buildability.

If the MSC goes forward first, then they would make that compatible with the ACL.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

sprjus4

Quote from: Beltway on January 21, 2019, 09:01:09 PM
It is not accessible by 4-lane roads, it is 5 miles from US-220, and an I-73 interchange is planned right next to it.  There is major development planned at the other interchange VA-57 also on the northern loop.
It's about 2 miles, not 5, from a realigned I-73.



Plus, Henry County shouldn't plan developments off of something that isn't for sure going to be built in one set location. Only build when the interstate is under construction or already existing. If the proposed alignment gets changed, that's on them, they're assuming it will get built at that specific location. The MSC goes against that idea.

Quote from: Beltway on January 21, 2019, 09:01:09 PM
If the MSC goes forward first, then they would make that compatible with the ACL.
If they built an eastern alignment for the MSC, that's assuming the rest of I-73 gets built. Things could change, and an eastern project would be a complete waste of money until it's guaranteed to actually service an interstate. If no I-73 was proposed, and they built a road to the east, it would serve almost no traffic, and existing US-220 would still continue to be the main highway.

Beltway

#439
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 21, 2019, 09:13:20 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 21, 2019, 09:01:09 PM
It is not accessible by 4-lane roads, it is 5 miles from US-220, and an I-73 interchange is planned right next to it.  There is major development planned at the other interchange VA-57 also on the northern loop.
It's about 2 miles, not 5, from a realigned I-73.

None of the DEIS western sub-alternates between the US-220 bypass and just north of the county line had an alignment like that, they were at or west of US-220.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 21, 2019, 09:13:20 PM
Plus, Henry County shouldn't plan developments off of something that isn't for sure going to be built in one set location. Only build when the interstate is under construction or already existing. If the proposed alignment gets changed, that's on them, they're assuming it will get built at that specific location. The MSC goes against that idea.

That is not how things work, it is a joint effort to route a new highway while taking into consideration current and proposed development patterns.

Why such intense focus on routing I-73 west of the city when all 4 southern municipalities requested it to the east and the CTB approved that?  Do you own a large tract of land west of town?
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

NE2

Quote from: Beltway on January 21, 2019, 09:01:09 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 21, 2019, 06:24:10 PM
The only one I found was the Patriot Centre Industrial Park which would be about 2 miles from a western alignment, and accessible by 4-lane roadways. The eastern alternative would get about 1.5 miles from it and is served by 2 lane roads... I must be missing some other development.

It is not accessible by 4-lane roads, it is 5 miles from US-220, and an I-73 interchange is planned right next to it.
The route using 174 and 220 Business to 220 is four lanes, with the exception of a short piece of 174 that has only one lane westbound...
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

Beltway

Quote from: NE2 on January 21, 2019, 10:10:54 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 21, 2019, 09:01:09 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 21, 2019, 06:24:10 PM
The only one I found was the Patriot Centre Industrial Park which would be about 2 miles from a western alignment, and accessible by 4-lane roadways. The eastern alternative would get about 1.5 miles from it and is served by 2 lane roads... I must be missing some other development.
It is not accessible by 4-lane roads, it is 5 miles from US-220, and an I-73 interchange is planned right next to it.

There is major development planned at the other interchange VA-57 also on the northern loop. [entirely 2 lanes]

The route using 174 and 220 Business to 220 is four lanes, with the exception of a short piece of 174 that has only one lane westbound...

And at an urban bottleneck.  A poor connection compared to an excellent connection.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

sprjus4

Quote from: Beltway on January 21, 2019, 09:28:58 PM
None of the DEIS western sub-alternates between the US-220 bypass and just north of the county line had an alignment like that, they were at or west of US-220.
I've mentioned numerous of times this was my conceptual alignment. In that regard, it would work.

Quote from: Beltway on January 21, 2019, 09:28:58 PM
That is not how things work, it is a joint effort to route a new highway while taking into consideration current and proposed development patterns.
Correct. If you already have infrastructure there, you should want a new highway to pass it. If you plan for something there, you should want a new highway to pass it. But don't purposely build assuming the highway will go there. If the development is already there, or you want development, understandable. But I'm pretty sure that industrial park was built recently assuming that I-73 would stroke the northern end of it.

Quote from: Beltway on January 21, 2019, 09:28:58 PM
Why such intense focus on routing I-73 west of the city when all 4 southern municipalities requested it to the east and the CTB approved that?  Do you own a large tract of land west of town?
Let's see, at this point I'm a NE NC economic development lobbyist and I own a large tract west of town. I push these things the same reason you do - you believe and want one thing, I want another. We can bicker and argue about it all day and night, but the fact is we both have a difference of opinion.

I could go back and say you have an intense focus on telling me everything wrong with my concepts, opinions, or thoughts, but I don't.

Quote from: Beltway on January 21, 2019, 11:14:01 PM
And at an urban bottleneck.  A poor connection compared to an excellent connection.
Yes, an urban bottleneck because of traffic signals and businesses. And aren't you proposing to add another urban bottleneck along the US-220 Bypass by removing access controls and adding traffic signals, businesses, etc? That will lead to growth, more traffic, and congestion that may not exist now, but will in the future.

Beltway

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 22, 2019, 12:04:14 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 21, 2019, 09:28:58 PM
None of the DEIS western sub-alternates between the US-220 bypass and just north of the county line had an alignment like that, they were at or west of US-220.
I've mentioned numerous of times this was my conceptual alignment. In that regard, it would work.

How would it work?  How can you say something can "work" without your doing detailed engineering analysis?  If it would "work" then why didn't it make one of the many sub-alternates in the DEIS? 

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 22, 2019, 12:04:14 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 21, 2019, 09:28:58 PM
That is not how things work, it is a joint effort to route a new highway while taking into consideration current and proposed development patterns.
Correct. If you already have infrastructure there, you should want a new highway to pass it. If you plan for something there, you should want a new highway to pass it. But don't purposely build assuming the highway will go there. If the development is already there, or you want development, understandable. But I'm pretty sure that industrial park was built recently assuming that I-73 would stroke the northern end of it.

There can be a long lead time for a highway to get built, and likewise the same for major developments.  One or the other could get delayed for various reasons.  Nevertheless they try to plan as much as possible.  That is why county governments have comprehensive plans, some try to forecast for 20 years or more.

They are proposing a much greater buildout than what has been built.  If the highway is delayed then the full buildout may be delayed, and maybe indefinitely.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 22, 2019, 12:04:14 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 21, 2019, 09:28:58 PM
Why such intense focus on routing I-73 west of the city when all 4 southern municipalities requested it to the east and the CTB approved that?  Do you own a large tract of land west of town?
Let's see, at this point I'm a NE NC economic development lobbyist and I own a large tract west of town. I push these things the same reason you do - you believe and want one thing, I want another. We can bicker and argue about it all day and night, but the fact is we both have a difference of opinion.
I could go back and say you have an intense focus on telling me everything wrong with my concepts, opinions, or thoughts, but I don't.

It was a question and not a statement.  Of course there are plenty of roadgeeks here that simply like to argue about roads and that is what motivates them.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 22, 2019, 12:04:14 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 21, 2019, 11:14:01 PM
And at an urban bottleneck.  A poor connection compared to an excellent connection.
Yes, an urban bottleneck because of traffic signals and businesses. And aren't you proposing to add another urban bottleneck along the US-220 Bypass by removing access controls and adding traffic signals, businesses, etc? That will lead to growth, more traffic, and congestion that may not exist now, but will in the future.

I said that it can be -considered-, pending traffic and development studies.  I would tend to believe that if I-73 is built that most of US-220 will be in the 5,000 to 8,000 AADT range and with about 10% large trucks.  If that is the case and the bypasses are converted to at-grade highways then there would be no bottlenecks and more businesses could be added.  But the traffic studies might prove otherwise.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

NE2

Quote from: Beltway on January 21, 2019, 11:14:01 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 21, 2019, 10:10:54 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 21, 2019, 09:01:09 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 21, 2019, 06:24:10 PM
The only one I found was the Patriot Centre Industrial Park which would be about 2 miles from a western alignment, and accessible by 4-lane roadways. The eastern alternative would get about 1.5 miles from it and is served by 2 lane roads... I must be missing some other development.
It is not accessible by 4-lane roads, it is 5 miles from US-220, and an I-73 interchange is planned right next to it.

There is major development planned at the other interchange VA-57 also on the northern loop. [entirely 2 lanes]

The route using 174 and 220 Business to 220 is four lanes, with the exception of a short piece of 174 that has only one lane westbound...

And at an urban bottleneck.  A poor connection compared to an excellent connection.
Moving goalposts.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

Beltway

Quote from: NE2 on January 22, 2019, 08:11:34 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 21, 2019, 11:14:01 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 21, 2019, 10:10:54 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 21, 2019, 09:01:09 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 21, 2019, 06:24:10 PM
The only one I found was the Patriot Centre Industrial Park which would be about 2 miles from a western alignment, and accessible by 4-lane roadways. The eastern alternative would get about 1.5 miles from it and is served by 2 lane roads... I must be missing some other development.
It is not accessible by 4-lane roads, it is 5 miles from US-220, and an I-73 interchange is planned right next to it.
There is major development planned at the other interchange VA-57 also on the northern loop. [entirely 2 lanes]
The route using 174 and 220 Business to 220 is four lanes, with the exception of a short piece of 174 that has only one lane westbound...
And at an urban bottleneck.  A poor connection compared to an excellent connection.
Moving goalposts.

In context.  Has a one-lane pinchpoint in an urban area.  A poor connection by any stretch.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

NE2

Almost everything has a one lane pinchpoint at ramps.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

Beltway

Quote from: NE2 on January 22, 2019, 08:47:58 AM
Almost everything has a one lane pinchpoint at ramps.

Depending on the needed capacity, ramps can be loops and ramps can have 2 lanes or more, and the connecting road can have 4 lanes or more.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

The Ghostbuster

I'm sure we'll all be dead before Interstate 73 gets built in Virginia.

hotdogPi

Why not route it up US 29?
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.